It would seem that...
Dear Tom,
Does it really require that? Or is praying for them in some way good for us? That is, even if the prayer has no effect on their ultimate disposition, is it not efficacious for us to pray for them as a discipline. I suppose I am guilty of the contingent whatever it is, and I hesitate to pronounce anyone damned, even if I have very strong leanings and suspicions (and I note that you have also avoided so categorical a statement). First, because I cannot know, and second (though I may misinterpret the scripture) it would seem to me that I would be judging in the instance in which Jesus told us, "Judge not lest ye be judged with the judgement ye have meted out." (But I'm not saying that I interpret it properly).
I know the heading is semi-ironic, and appreciate that. I do . And you rightly rebuke me for my failings in all of those many souls who have passed away probably much closer to the odor of Sanctity than these two men. But I offer in my defense that there is too much unseemly glee at what I can only view as an extremely unfortunate necessity. There are people related to these who have done no harm to anyone (other perhaps than loving these men) who mourn because of these deaths. What can I feel but sorrow for the necessity and sorrow at some of the joy some seem to take in this eventuality. That does not make me a better Catholic--in fact, it may make me a worse one, as I should accept joyfully whatever is God's will.
But I do return to my main point which is more--that by praying for these men, I recognize my own kinship in sin with them. I recognize that I am unworthy to pray for them, and I come to some realization of myself as sinner. Perhaps that is the greatest gift and efficacy of such prayer. Isn't the point of prayer to change us to better reflect the divine countenance? And what better way to do so than to recognize how far from that glory we are.
So, as I pointed out--it is merely a matter of discipline--and all that you have written here is true, and just, and right--and I detect no hint of glee at what I must only regard as necessary bloodshed (after all, by their actions these men chose for themselves what would happen to them--they could just as easily have surrendered.) So, oddly, I cannot but agree with what you have written here. Isn't that odd?
shalom,
Steven.
Steven, your response to Tom is nothing but puerile backtracking. If you felt such doubt in the first place, why did you even bother making the statement on your own blog?
Indeed, God desires reformation rather than destruction. But that reformation must take place in this life. That's the point of praying for evil men in this life; so they can stop abusing the innocent. And though God may desire reformation over destruction, He will destroy those who have taken advantage of his mercy to perpetrate evil. His righteousness demands it.
Steven, to pray for Uday and Qusai Hussein after their deaths is an insult to those whom they abused and tortured. It is an insult to the survivors of those whom they murdered. If anybody needs prayer, those victims do. Supporting the Husseins over and above the victims is tantamount to moral appeasement.
You seem to view praying for them ultimately as a narcissitic act, since you say it does your soul good. Do you need to engage in moral and spiritual appeasement to do your soul good? You say that you share a kinship w/both men because all men sin. Of course, all men sin but there are gradations of sin (mortal and venial, remember?). If you believe you truly share kinship with men of Udai's and Qusai's nature ... well, that speaks volumes about you than you could ever realize.
Tom, your last paragraph is spot on! However, you must realize that the Pope himself prayed for the souls of Atta and his band of merry jihadists on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Given that fact, then you must think the Pope believes in "contingent universal salvation," which both Scripture and the Church deny. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if he does, since such belief would comport with the universal sentimentality that defines much of contemporary Catholicism, even at its highest levels.
Mr. D'Hippolito,
I respectfully disagree both with the tone and the text of what you wished to convey.
Ad hominem attacks are both poor argumentation and discourteous.
shalom,
Steven
"Christian faith teaches that in taking the risk of saying
“yes” or “no,” which marks the (human) creature’s freedom,
some have already said no. They are the spiritual creatures
that rebelled against God’s love and are called demons (cf.
Fourth Lateran Council). What happened to them is a warning
to us: it is a continuous call to avoid the tragedy which
leads to sin and to conform our life to that of Jesus who
lived his life with a “yes” to God.
Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not
granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of
whether or which human beings are effectively involved in
it. The thought of hell—and even less the improper use of
biblical images—must not create anxiety or despair, but is a
necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the
proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan,
giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!”"
A little quiz: Who is the author of this quote?
2nd question: What information is Tom privy to that the quote's author is not?
Dear Mr. D'Hippolito--
How is reflecting on one's sinful condition narcissistic? How does that make prayer narcissistic? Are we not enjoined to pray at least in part for our own good? I think you miss a good deal of a prayer life if the only reason to do so is in obedience, petition,
Where is the moral or spiritual appeasement in praying for the good of another? I must frankly confess that this exchange comes very close to making me believe that deconstructionist and PoMo pundits are correct when they say that real communication is impossible. We speak such different languages that there is no chance that either will benefit from extended communication.
shalom,
Steven
Some people here have some real anger issues they should sort out before they even begin to call themselves christians...
Steven,
First, no irony was intended by the title. If I were a better Catholic, I'd pray enough that my second and third points would be invalid, and I'd value my own judgment so little my first and fourth points would be invalid, too.
Now, would praying for something I think is impossible be good for my soul? I'm not sure, but I am sure that there are many, many other things I'm not doing that would be absolutely wonderful for my soul. As a matter of prudence, why settle for something so feeble?
As for, "Judge not lest ye be judged with the judgement ye have meted out," my judgment is that someone who habitually rapes and tortures people, then dies a violent, unrepentant death is not one of the sheep given the Son by the Father. Habitual rape and torture are, fortunately, not among my vices, so I'm not particularly concerned about this coming back to bite me.
David,
Did I claim knowledge of which human beings are effectively involved in eternal damnation? If I say, "I happen to believe the Phillies aren't going to win the World Series this season," am I claiming knowledge of the future?
Joseph,
Mind the tone. This isn't Usenet.
Well, that's how I took your saying that
"First, I happen to believe that, if anyone is damned, Odai Hussein is damned. I also happen to believe that people are damned. So..."
What's the force of that "So"? I took it as the conclusion indicator of an argument.
Did I misread?
David,
Right. I happen to believe that Odai Hussein is damned. But that doesn't mean I know he is.
The Pope does say "we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether ... human beings are effectively involved in" eternal damnation. Well, he's the Pope; all I can say is that if nothing in Scripture or Tradition teaches that human beings are effectively involved in eternal damnation, then there are great swaths of Scripture and Tradition that I simply don't understand at all.
Dear David,
I would argue in Tom's favor that he did posit IF any one is, and he did not say for certain that anyone was; therefore, he effectively vacated judgment on the issue. I initially misread what was said and thus my statement about judge not. However, I do note that we cannot know that they are unrepentant. We can assume from all past actions that it is so--and obviously as they are at least nominally Muslim, there is no particular purgative rite of which we would have knowledge--so I would say this is as close to judgment as it gets. If they truly were UNREPENTANT, I could find no fault whatsoever witht he conclusion; however, I cannot say (mercifully--that knowledge is left to God alone.) I can speculate, but under durress, who knows?
And Tom, you are absolutely correct with the individual responses, I think I was asking the quesiton in the larger ruminative sense--not you particularly--if you truly believe that it would be impossible for this to happen then praying for it would be an exercise in the ludicrous. But who is to say that prayer, which is participation in eternity is not as efficacious "after the fact" in temporal consideration? What is the meaning of the Baptism of the Dead that Paul does mention? Yes--I know speculative, but I think I'm cudgeling here the question of "impossibility." "With God, all things are possible." I believe that with all my heart--even the redemption of two, who to all human vision are beyond redemption.
I suppose that means I believe in contingent universal salvation--but I think I prefer to think that with God all things are possible--not likely, perhaps not probable--but certainly possible. And if they are possible charity may enjoin me to participate in whatever fashion conscience allows.
To your credit you have already allowed such participation. I guess I get wrapped up in these questions and really wonder about some of this stuff. But I do truly admire some of your thinking that seems to help cut through the muddle.
Thank you.
Shalom,
Steven.
Mr. D'Hippolito,
I think I'm in a better place to answer your real question now having recovered some of my equamity. Please pardon my previous outburst.
You may not be sufficiently familiar with me to know that I often do things like this. I post looking for response, and Tom here is a fairly reliable respondant, in that much of what he has to say has a solid factual foundation and good reasoning. As a result much of what is said leads me to consider the matter and wonder where my thought is going astray. You are right, it looks like I am backtracking, but I think I am trying to fairly consider the issue, ask more questions and clarify my own, often-muddled thought.
I am truly sorry I took offense. This written medium is so easily misread and it is far too easy to divorce words from tone and person. Please pardon me.
shalom,
Steven
Shoshone,
My apologies to you as well. My response was over-the-top. Please pardon me.
shalom,
Steven
Uday and Qusay Hussein need our prayers just as much as our family, friends, and acquaintances, and in my opinion, even more. This doesnt mean you necessarily have to consciously remember them in your prayers (though it would be a nice gesture). I've made a deceision to pray for a certain person(s) every day, but also to pray for and do penance for "all sinners". I can't remember everybody as persons, but I can remember them en masse. Our Lord tells St. Faustina in her diary that the greater the sinner, the greater right they have to his mercy (obviously he was speaking loosely--noone has a "right" to mercy, in the strict sense). We MUST, as Catholics, hope and pray that Uday and Qusay, before their souls left their bodies, recognized their sin and were led to true repentance. We can indeed pray for this, since Our Lord is not bound by time, he can take into account a future prayer or penance at the moment of a person's death. God have mercy on Uday and Qusay, and of course, myself, who am the chief sinner and have many times deserved eternal condemnation. Lord Jesus, may your blood spread over the souls of these men and have mercy, and one day admit them to your eternal blessedness. We ask this with complete confidence in Christ Jesus our Lord, the incarnate Mercy. Amen
We MUST, as Catholics, hope and pray that Uday and Qusay, before their souls left their bodies, recognized their sin and were led to true repentance.
Have we then gone from daring to hope that all are saved to requiring hope?
I think I've written before about my dissatisfaction with the idea that we can pray to affect the past, because according to this idea the only part of the past we can affect is the part we don't know about. It just seems odd that our knowledge of the past proscribes God's ability to have acted in the past based on our prayers in the present. And how dare we presume to watch television when there are unprayed-for souls who died in the Tartar invasions? To me, it simply sounds like a soft-hearted theory unsupported by historical Catholic witness.
The question of whether a notoriously evil non-Christian halfway around the world needs my prayers even more than my wife does is kind of interesting. Granting his objective need is greater, that he requires "more" grace to be saved, does it follow in justice that I must pray for him more than, or before, I pray for my wife? I don't think so, for much the same reason that I don't think I have to make sure no one in the world is starving before I feed my wife.
Steven, you have no need to apologize for anything. You did not offend me in the slightest. Passionate people express opinions passionately; this is to be expected and encouraged. You also ask several me questions that deserve a thoughtful response.
First, I don't believe that reflecting on one's own sinful condition is narcissistic. It's necessary. Neither do I believe that praying for the good of another is moral appeasement. But the your thoughts on this issue completely baffle me. We are both sinners, Steven, but neither of us are the outright sons of perdition that Saddam's eldest sons were. That's a statement of fact, not of spiritual pride. Spiritual humility, in my opinion, doesn't require abject self-negation to the point of deliberately obscuring the good you do. That's the nonsense cults promote to diminish an individual's self-respect and independence and to get him inculcated into the mass.
Spiritual humility, on the other had, means an honest, sober appraisal of oneself, w/o arrogance or psychological self-flagellation. For you to declare your kinship with such men in sinfulness is to equate yourself as a mass murderer, torturer and rapist. You present yourself as a sensitive man who abhors such things, so how can you equate yourself with them?
What I consider moral appeasement is praying for such dead while ignoring their living victims. Has anyone on this thread offered prayers for them, or even suggested doing so? That's why this discussion nauseates me; we are all reflecting on esoteric ideas that only God can control while we are forsaking those people over which we can have some prayerful influence. Let God deal w/Saddam's sons.
BTW, David, while we don't know God's final judgement on every specific matter, we aren't called upon to be stupid. Saddam's sons engaged in behavior that animals (if they had consciences) wouldn't even engage in. They violated every strand of ethics, morality, compassion and decency known to man and God. Saying that they're "God's children," quite frankly, is an insult to God.
Dear Mr. D'Hippolito,
I do see some of your point. And as a matter of fact, I have prayed for them as well--each and every person who exults in the freedom that has been given to them--every family who lost a child to the monsters who are so rightly condemned. You are correct--to pray for those whose absence has made the world a better place without praying for their victims and the families of their victims would be insanity. Naturally the latter is somewhat harder to do as we do not know their individual names--but as I pray a decade of the rosary or a part of the Chaplet of divine mercy, each bead is dedicated to one of those who have suffered oppression under the tyranny of such as these sons. I do not know that a bead of one of these prayers will go to the two sons, but I shall pray for them.
And I do see myself as a son of perdition--I have not committed these acts physically, but there have been times when they would have been possible for me. I honestly do not equate myself with these men; however, I do see myself reflected in them, as I do in Judas, and those who nailed Christ to the Cross. And once again, I acknowledge your point, but it suggests to me the possibility of a kind of creeping spiritual pride (for me) and so I do not really look that way. Intellectually, I recognize that my physical sins are not so great, and yet as a practice, I must try not to spend time in judging others as my own sinfulness will always rise up before me.
Thank you. I think I better understand the points you were trying to make and I very honestly concur with some of them. You are correct in much of what you say, and you remind me very pointedly of my duty to continue prayer for those who are destroyed and crushed under oppressive regimes. I wish I had time to pray for every person, even a single prayer for each, in North Korea, in Zimbabwe. I'm certain God honors my blanket prayers for the people, but it often does not feel like enough.
shalom,
Steven
Steven, don't be so hard on yourself. I'm certain God honors your honest, sincere attempt to care prayerfully for the victims of sadistic tyrants.
I recall an anecdote about an illiterate Jewish man who went to the Temple in Jerusalem. He knew only three letters of the Hebrew alphabet but when he recognized those letters in the text he was examining or the prayers he was hearing, he said those letters w/dedication. God was said to be thrilled.
Consider this as you pray your rosary, and don't criticize yourself for "not doing enough". That kind of self-doubt is the work of Satan, who wants that self-doubt to overwhelm your prayers.
And now, for another aspect of this question: Does showing compassion for the dead Uday and Qusay equivalent to showing insensitive contempt to their victims? As the Talmud says, "those who are merciful when they should be cruel will be cruel when they should be merciful." Any takers?
For you to declare your kinship with such men in sinfulness is to equate yourself as a mass murderer, torturer and rapist. You present yourself as a sensitive man who abhors such things, so how can you equate yourself with them?
Even if we are, indeed, above such things, how do such things come about? Because of our own prudent calculation to avoid being born in the proximity of temptation to these sins? Because of our resistance (unadded by grace) to temptation?
"those who are merciful when they should be cruel will be cruel when they should be merciful."
Humm. I heard it rendered, "Those who are merciful toward the cruel will be cruel toward the merciful." Having obvious application when you are discussing whether criminals should receive short or long sentence, or be required to repay their victims when their means are not great.
What does praying for the cruel deprive the innocent of?
No, prayer for the salvation of U. and Q. is not equivalent to showing insensitive contempt for their victims. We should pray for their salvation, too.
1 Tim. 2: 1-4:
"...I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, [even evil despots--K.] that we may live a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." (emphasis mine)
I suspect the Talmud excerpt dealt more with civil restraint than with prayer.
Though I may pray with more detail and animation for my family, I don't think the "bottom line" differs from how I'd pray for Q. and U., or for their victims:
Lord, not my will but Thine be done.
Remember, too, the eleventh hour vineyard parable. If God wants to be wildly generous to Q. and U. (or any other heinous sinner or unbeliever), who are we to tell Him He's wrong?
A clarification:
I suspect that Q. and U. are damned. I frankly have no problem with the idea of their damnation!
But if God desires [note, Tom--desires, not wills] that all men be saved, I hope for that, too. But I pray that His will be done, ultimately.
His will: that no one come to the Father but through the Son. Only God knows whether U., Q, or their victims are saved through Christ.
My job is not to be on the planning committee, but to pray.
Mary, I believe that praying for the cruel once they are dead deprives the innocent of the compassion to which they are entitled. Just look at this thread. The vast majority of the correspondents are discussing the esoteric issue of the possible salvation of Saddam's sons rather than turning attention to their victims. They need far more than compassion and prayer; they need help in putting their broken, abused lives together -- if that is indeed possible. It is they who should be in our thoughts at this time, not their torturers and abusers. No amount of mental masturbation disguised as esoteric dicussion can change that.
You also ask how it comes about that we aren't rapists, murderers, torturers, etc. One answer is that people choose to act morally. God created us in His image. That means he not only gave us intelligence and sensitivity but also free will. Read Moses' final address to the Israelites in Deuteronomy, in which he says (paraphrased), "I have put before you death and life, good and evil. Choose life and good."
Another answer is that God gives those who choose to repent (and repentance ultimately is a choice) grace and strength through His Holy Spirit.
Mary, the implication in your questions is "there but for the grace of God go I." That not only smacks of fatalism but of a kind of false humility that Catholicism has promoted to keep the faithful pliant and quiet through unnecessary guilt.
The question is not "Do I put these two on my prayer list?" but "How do I react when I hear that they are dead?".
How do you deal with the news of the death of presumed malefactors? You either say to yourself "Good riddance" or "Lord have mercy on them". I think we should always school ourselves to do the latter.
Mr. D'Hippolito,
The emphasis on the possibility of their redemption may be the fault of the wellspring of this note. It became the focus of discussion because of the question posed as to whether one ought to pray for them or not. So naturally much of the discussion is focused in that direction. I do not think that it indicates a lack of sympathy or compassion for the victims, but rather a very restrained and well-placed attempt to continue on-topic. Many of your points are very well taken, and I have taken them to heart once again. There are millions more deserving of our prayers, but very very few indeed more desperately in need of them if they can be efficacious.
Moreover, the initial post was made counter to some unseemly glee generated by the deaths of two men. While I believe the world is a far better place without them, and I cannot be said to truly mourn their passing, I also think it an enormous tragedy that this is what is required to remedy such evil. (They chose their own fate--so I do not see this as injust.) However, I also mourn, and burn with indignation for all of those who were not given a choice by these men. I mourn for their families who lost family members--and even so, I mourn for their families, though the God Lord knows, it is possible that the families may be better off without such people in them--I cannot say.
But the focus does not indicate a lack of sympathy of the Iraqi people so long unjustly oppressed, exploited, and destroyed by two monsters. Rather it reflects the genesis of the discussion, which naturally would tend to be esoteric because the question is not one readily answered. And finally, you are correct. I have not spent a great deal of time worrying about the fates of these two men. As Kathy suggested, a brief prayer committing them to the Mercy of God's Will, whatever that may happen to be. I trust God will do as is right and proper for these men. I thank God that now they are His to deal with rather than ours. But still I take no pleasure in the death and possible loss of even one of God's children. He created us all to return to Him and the greatest tragedy of all is for one or two to be lost along the way--because this losing is eternal. I pray every day that not one is lost to Him--but I do fear that the human heart is horrendously hard and thorny, and loss is all too possible. We are ever brilliant at rejecting the impulse of love.
shalom,
Steven
shalom,
Steven
shalom,
Steven
I suppose I was misled by the surface structure of what Tom said. It seemed to me to be in the form of an argument:
if x, y.
x
So, y.
Tom seems to be saying that the conclusion following "So" is something like "I happen to believe Odai Hussein is damned." And that this really isn't an argument, simply an explanation of why he isn't inclined to pray for these two men.
That proposition doesn't seem particularly controversial. Nor does it require an argument to back up its truth.
However, I took it that he was giving a justification for a more ambitious proposition--that "Odai Hussein is damned."
One can deny the doctrine of contingent universal salvation AND consider it imprudent to divide humanity up into who is damned and who is not.
None of us are in the right epistemic position to do the latter.
It is much easier--"it FEELS good"--to pray for people we identify with. Thus, it is nearly effortless to pray for people we're fond of; it's relatively easy to pray for people we can identify with (like Q. and U.'s victims); but it is very difficult to force ourselves to pray for people we despise.
I'd like to offer now a prayer on behalf of this bunch for the victims of the cruel Iraqi regime (and all other cruel regimes on earth).
Lord, reveal Yourself to them, save them, protect them, vindicate them, and strengthen them to love and serve You. Amen.
For the evil perps, we are not commanded to FEEL kinship, either by "mental masturbation" or by thoughtful contemplation of the fierce effects of Original Sin left unchecked through a lifetime.
We can hate them if we like--but it is God's will (expressed by St. Paul) that we pray for them. "Father, Thy will be done" is quite sufficient if you can't muster anything else.
Remember, God dramatically insisted that Jonah preach to (AND CONVERT!) the Ninevites, even though he detested them.
BTW, since when does "prayer" consist of setting aside a block of time to sit down with a list of names, then composing words to say on their behalf?
That's not the ONLY way to pray, O esteemed Dominican! John of the Cross says that a simple thought (not necessarily even a clarified one) to heaven about someone is a form of prayer.
John goes on to say, the Holy Spirit does not lie. If you've got a special love, intensity, or "burden" on your heart for something or someone, it's put there by the Lord.
On the other hand, if someone makes a request of you to pray and you are indifferent, just offer up a brief prayer on the spot and be done with it. You need feel no condemnation for not praying every day for that need.
The Lord, in short, puts each of us into a different sphere of influence.
Tom and Joseph, neither of you may ever be required to fast and wear sackcloth for Q. and U., and that's fine.
My two points are 1) it is just to pray for their souls; 2) just because God desires for all men to be saved does not mean that he WILLS for them to be saved.
And there's no obligation at all for you to add them onto the bottom of your ongoing prayer list: one grunt for God's sake and it'll be all over!
Oh, you Carmelites. :)
You're simply imitating St. Therese of Lisieux:
In 1887, Therese was 14 years old at the time, news of the murder of two women and an 11-year-old child filled the French papers. What makes the story even more provocative is the character of the killer, Henri Pranzini. A brilliant man who spoke eight languages, Pranzini remained completely unrepentant, even as his execution approached. After her Christmas conversion, Thérèse decided to adopt him as her first spiritual "child," and prayed for him constantly. And, at the last minute, as he approached the guillotine, Pranzini seized the crucifix and kissed it three times. Thérèse saw this as her first victory in her quest to "save souls."
http://www.osmelink.org/messages...0number%
207.htm
Saw this story referenced by Kathy and did a little investigating.
"Mind the tone. This isn't Usenet."
Great! Reminds me of a Usenet tagline I saw once:
"Legend has it that Usenet was once worse than it is now, but how could that be?"
Mary, the implication in your questions is "there but for the grace of God go I."
Guess I shouldn't have deleted that very line from my post there. I thought it didn't fit as I was writing it, but it would have spare you the bother of inferring it.
That not only smacks of fatalism but of a kind of false humility that Catholicism has promoted to keep the faithful pliant and quiet through unnecessary guilt.
And why is it not true humility?
Incidentially,
this (the first post) is the best comment I can make about the Catholicism crack. It is a fundamental element of Christianity in general that in us there is no good thing, and without Him, we can do nothing.
Fortunately, this is not fatalistic. It is the exact reverse of fatalistic, because it is not resting on our fragile selves but on God, Who is worthy of trust.
Fascinating thread.
The temptation is to judge the comments by the agendas of their writers - if I see the Church hierarchy as an obstacle to faith I will necessarily dislike humility and call it faux.
St. Philip Neri's prayer was "Jesus, watch over me always, especially today, or I shall betray you like Judas."
Really St. Philip? Are saints guilty of pious exaggeration when they proclaim their unworthiness, or do they actually see themselves more accurately than we do ourselves?
The stark differences of the thread writers remind me of what Tom wrote about during the lead up to the Iraq war. He suggested that perhaps in making up the Body of Christ it is necessary to have both pacifists and JWT's. For the individual to attempt to become both is not what God desires. Besides, then we'd all be the same.
I wonder if the Golden Mean should be achieved by individuals or by the Body of Christ composite.
TS, David and Joseph (et al.),
St. Therese herself--the most innocent and sheltered of human beings ever to walk the earth!--held vehemently to the "There but for the grace of God go I" line. She compares herself with Mary Magdalene; she insists that she was forgiven not much but ALL, because God foresaw the possibilities and forgave her in advance.
She used the analogy for M.M. of a child tripping over a rock, and the doctor Father cleaning and binding the wound.
For herself, she saw the doctor Father as taking the rock out of the path just before she came by, thereby sparing her the fall.
BTW, when I first read Teresa of Avila's Life, I was really turned off by her seeming "false humility." Constantly downgrading herself and calling herself feeble and a worm, etc.
But the more I read (and the more I hang around serious believers), the more I see that the saints are not merely engaging in hyperbole. As God strips away more and more worldliness, they see flaws more and more clearly--and, instead of excusing them or laughing them off, they hate their sins.
Of course, for me to say that stuff about feebleness and worms, it would be false humility, even though it would be true.
Still, Scripture distinguishes between the just and the wicked, both of whom fall: "For the just man falls seven times and rises again, but the wicked stumble to ruin."
Really interesting discussion. I have to side with Steven and Kathy, et al. One thing no one has mentioned is, What chance at goodness could the sons of Saddam Hussein ever have had? There is no telling the ways in which their minds and souls have been warped.
Before anyone accuses me of being a bleeding heart, I am NOT a proponent of the "abuse excuse" -- at least, not in the worldly system of law and justice. But when we're talking about the hereafter . . .
. . . I have been taught that we will be surprised to find out who is and who is not in Heaven. I'm assuming it is because we semi-normal people can't even fathom the starting points that some poor souls came from.
And regarding the alleged disrespect to the victims by praying for the perps, I definitely agree that victims should be prayed for. But I would also assume that the victims may be much less evil and warped than the perpetrators, and thus perhaps less in need of prayers for their SOULS.
Mary, I believe that praying for the cruel once they are dead deprives the innocent of the compassion to which they are entitled. Just look at this thread. The vast majority of the correspondents are discussing the esoteric issue of the possible salvation of Saddam's sons rather than turning attention to their victims.
Eh? Most people on this thread are spending about 20 minutes a day on it. And if they're praying for Saddam's sons, it only takes about two seconds to say "Lord have mercy on their souls" or to add them to a list of rosary intentions. I really don't see how that's preventing us from helping their victims.
Regarding false humility - should we "fake it till we make it"? If I can't identify myself as equivalent with Uday Hussein, should I practice humility even if it feel false?
TSO,
I'd distinguish between humility and identifying with Uday Hussein. The Pharisee went home unjustified, not because he really was greedy, dishonest, and adulterous like the rest of humanity, but because he didn't consider himself a sinner at all.
If you want a fine distinction, try "I am a sinner like Uday Hussein" and "I am a sinner, like Uday Hussein." I'll take the second one, but the first sounds to me, not like false humility, but simple falsehood.
Dear Tom and T. S.,
And perhaps there is another question. Rationally, I cannot compare my sins with those of the two men involved; however, equally rationally, I know myself well enough to know that the potential exists for enormous cruelty, viciousness, and sheer awfulness. If I am not Udai, it is not through my own will, but through the Grace of God who saved me from it. Can we recognize in Udai the extremes of the potential--that is not that everyone is likely to become that, but there is obviously the potential for it to happen. Part of humility consists in recognizing that what preserves me from it lies outside of myself and in a gift of grace to me. Or so I'm thinking right now.
(Remember even St. Thomas Aquinas of whom reportedly was said after confession near death, "The sins of a five year old child," considered himself a monster of sinfulness and self-centeredness. As we grow in grace the mirror we are looking in gradually unfogs and we see more clearly what we really are--and I can't honestly say how different in God's eyes that might be from what Udai and his brother were. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
shalom,
Steven
Mary, there's a strong difference between humility, shame and guilt. Humility, by its very nature, requires balance and moderation. Humility not only discourages people to think better of themselves than they ought, but also discourages them to think worse of themselves than they ought. Going to either extreme means that the individual can't look at himself in the proper light; he's either accentuating his goodness at the expense of his failures or vice versa.
The truly humble person realizes in what specific ways he pleases God, in what specific ways he displeases God, works to remedy the latter and prays for grace and power throughout -- knowing, of course, that he can never attain perfection in this life. That's where God's grace comes in.
Shame and guilt can be useful tools in correcting behavior but all too often, they can overwhelm the individual to the point where he fixates on his own shame and guilt. God does not want us to live this way. As the Book of Hebrews says, He wants us to come to the throne of grace boldly and with confidence. He wants us to deal honestly with sin, not be mired in guilt; that's one of the fundamental reasons for Christ's atoning sacrifice. And as we deal with sin, He still wants us to understand that we are His heirs in Christ, a royal priesthood, a chosen nation.
Unfortunately, the Church has done a mediocre job at best of teaching these concepts. Witness this thread. On the other hand, the Church has done a magnificent job of instilling a pervasive sense of guilt and unworthiness in the faithful. This is a trick of Satan to get us focusing on ourselves instead of on the atoning, redemptive work of Christ. It's narcissism disguised as "humility."
Mary, my "crack," as you call it, wasn't it crack. It's the truth.
BTW, papist girl, it seems I struck a nerve when I suggested that praying for Saddam's dead sons takes away from compassionately comtemplating (let alone praying for) their victims. Of course, it's much more fun to indulge one's ego in the vain, theoretical speculation about those sons ultimate fate (which is God's business alone), isn't it?
Humility not only discourages people to think better of themselves than they ought, but also discourages them to think worse of themselves than they ought.
The sentence, "There but for the grace of God go I," does not address the question of whether the speaker is better than the person spoken of -- though it certainly implies it. What it addresses is the question of who gets the credit.
"Not to us, LORD, not to us but to your name give glory" Psalm 115:1
I would say:
I am a sinner like Uday and Qusay
The reason is, although I have never physically killed a man, I HAVE killed a God man. My sins crucified him to that cross. I also think of all the people I have led into the depths of hell through the scandal of my sins and leading them into those sins with me (spiritual death). Am I any better than Uday and Qusay? Simply put---no.
One remark:
I remember a section in Bill Buckley's "Nearer My God" wherein a panel shows absolute horror that God The Merciful could condemn some to hell.
The panel sobers up when reminded that God also is the Source of Perfect Justice.
"In other words," says a panelist (Not WFB, Jr.) "If you deserve hell, God sends you there. Divine Justice itself demands it."
My opinion? Uday, Odai can now make a fourth for bridge with Hitler and Stalin. Mao can kibitz...
Commenting by HaloScan
